alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<Page>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                           IBIS TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
              STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE INCOME (LOSS)

<Table>
<Caption>
                                                                         Years Ended December 31,
                                                           -------------------------------------------
                                                              1999              2000               2001
                                                              ----              ----               ----

<S>                                                      <C>               <C>                <C>
Basic net income (loss)...........................       $      827,129    $  (1,501,867)     $  (9,594,919)
                                                         ==============    =============      =============
Weighted average common shares outstanding-
  basic...........................................            7,403,803        8,285,893          8,378,262
Net additional common shares upon assumed
  exercise of stock options and warrants..........              414,348               --                 --
                                                         --------------    -------------      -------------
Weighted average commons shares outstanding-
  diluted.........................................            7,818,151        8,285,893          8,378,262
                                                         --------------    -------------      -------------
Net income (loss) per common share
  Basic...........................................       $         0.11    $       (0.18)     $       (1.15)
                                                         ==============    =============      =============
  Diluted.........................................       $         0.11    $       (0.18)     $       (1.15)
                                                         ==============    =============      =============
</Table>
#### Application of Homer PETTY for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

No. A-12351.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

Sept. 12, 1956.

Homer Petty, pro se.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for respondent.

JONES, Presiding Judge.

This is an original action in habeas corpus wherein the petitioner, Homer Petty, seeks to secure his release from confinement in the penitentiary where he is presently serving a sentence of life imprisonment after a conviction for murder in the District Court of Ottawa County.

In the verified petition there were set forth five propositions which allegedly would require this court to set aside said judgment on habeas corpus.

The court has heretofore considered the propositions presented by the petitioner in an appeal taken from his conviction. Petty v. State, Okl.Cr., 283 P.2d 209. Accused was represented by two able counsel at his trial and his cause was well briefed on appeal. A reading of the decision on the appeal will show that the killing was wholly unjustified.

It is established law that after a person has appealed his conviction and the judgment of conviction has been affirmed, he may not obtain release in habeas corpus on the grounds previously raised or other grounds which might entitle him to a new trial save and except he may present any question by habeas corpus which goes to the jurisdiction of the court and would show that the judgment rendered against him was wholly void. Ex parte Baker, *70976 Okl.Cr. 396, 137 P.2d 242; De Wolf v. State, 96 Okl.Cr. 382, 256 P.2d 191; Ex parte Washington, 92 Okl.Cr. 337, 223 P.2d 552.

All of the allegations of the petition are either merely conclusions of law or they present propositions which were thoroughly considered on the appeal and decided adversely to the accused. There was nothing alleged in the petition nor presented on behalf of the accused at the hearing which would show the judgment was v0^-

The writ of habeas corpus is denied,

BRETT and POWELL, JJ., concur.
# C_2019093EN.01006101.xml

| 11.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/61

---

Order of the General Court of 16 January 2019 — Theodorakidi v EUIPO — Benopoulou (THYREOS VASSILIKI)

(Case T-160/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark THYREOS VASSILIKI - Declaration of invalidity - Right to the name Vassiliki in Greece - Relative ground for invalidity regarding the infringement of the right to a name - Article 60(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

(2019/C 93/79)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vassiliki Theodorakidi (Veroia, Greece) (represented by: F. Ikonomidou Ikonomou, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Vassiliki Benopoulou (Kifissia, Greece)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 December 2017 (Case R 40/2017-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Ms Benopoulou and Ms Theodorakidi.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Ms Vassiliki Theodorakidi shall bear her own costs and pay those of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ms Vassiliki Theodorakidi shall bear her own costs and pay those of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.

---
<PAGE>   1

                                                                     EXHIBIT 21
                                                                     

                       SUBSIDIARIES OF HEALTHSOURCE, INC.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

Name/Doing Business As
(if applicable)                           State of Incorporation      Ownership
----------------------                    ----------------------      ---------
<S>                                       <C>                         <C>
Healthsource New Hampshire, Inc.          NH                          100%

Healthsource Indiana Insurance            IN                          100%
Company

Healthsource Indiana Managed Care         IN                          100%
Plan, Inc.

Healthsource Insurance Group, Inc.        NH                          100%

Healthsource South Carolina, Inc.         SC                          100%

Healthsource Insurance Services, Inc.     SC                          100%

Healthsource Tennessee Preferred,         TN                          100%
Inc.

Healthsource Tennessee, Inc.              TN                          100%

Healthsource North Carolina               NC                          100%
Administrators, Inc.

Coordinated Health Care, Inc.             NC                          100%

Healthsource North Carolina, Inc.         NC                          100%

Healthsource HMO of New York, Inc.        NY                          100%

Healthsource Preferred, Inc.              NH                          100%

Healthsource Maine, Inc.                  ME                          100%

Healthsource Employer Services,           NH                          100%
Inc./Jobcare

Healthsource Maine Preferred, Inc.        ME                          100%

Employee Benefit Plan                     NH                          100%
Administration, Inc.

</TABLE>

<PAGE>   2

ChubbHealth, Inc.                         NY                           15%

Rehabilitation Consultants, Inc.          NH                          100%

Healthsource Arkansas, Inc.               AR                          100%

Healthsource Arkansas Preferred, Inc.     AR                          100%

Coordinated Arkansas Preferred            AR                          100%
Provider Organizations, Inc.

Healthsource Provident                    TN                          100%
Administrators, Inc.

Healthsource Provident                    TN                          100%
Insurance Company

Healthsource North Texas, Inc.            TX                           70%

Provident Health Care Plan, Inc.          TN                          100%
of Tennessee

Healthsource Ohio, Inc.                   OH                          100%

Healthsource Kentucky, Inc.               KY                          100%
Exhibit 32

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015 (the Form 10-K), of the Company fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: February 26, 2016

By:

/s/ Jochen E. TilkJochen E. TilkPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate: February 26, 2016

By:

/s/ Wayne R. BrownleeWayne R. BrownleeExecutive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-K pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation
S-K, Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K.
# C_2009055EN.01002103.xml

| 7.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/21

---

Order of the President of the Court of 4 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-240/08) (1)

1

(2009/C 55/37)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.

1

---
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Edward Wilk, Appellant, v Andrew P. Meloni, as Monroe County Sheriff, et al., Respondents.

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We need not decide whether the principle established by *People v Rosario*(9 NY2d 286, *rearg denied*9 NY2d 908, *cert denied*368 US 866, *rearg denied*14 NY2d 876, 15 NY2d 765) applies to preliminary parole revocation hearings. Here, the materials requested by counsel for relator were not in the possession or control of the Division of Parole. Thus, the Division of Parole was under no obligation to furnish those materials to relator *(People v Bailey,*73 NY2d 812; *People v Tissois,*72 NY2d 75, 78; *People v Fishman,*72 NY2d 884; *People v Reedy,*70 NY2d 826, 827; *People v Letizia,*159 AD2d 1010, *lv denied*76 NY2d 738). It was not error to preclude the testimony of the witness sought to be called at the preliminary hearing because her testimony did not relate to the charge under consideration. (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Marks, J. — Habeas Corpus.) Present— Denman, J. P., Boomer, Lawton, Lowery and Davis, JJ.
August 12, 2015

Robert Serinni

Serriniverse LLC.

316 24th Street

Manhattan Beach, CA 90277

Dear Mr. Serinni:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

part 21; §§ 91.103(b)(2), 91.105, 91.109, 91.119, 91.121, 91.151, 91.405, 91.407, 91.409, and 

91.417 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not

process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your exemption request on behalf of Serriniverse LLC. into the public docket 

(No. FAA−2015−0999) on April 14, 2015, but we are unable to process your request any 

further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy 

enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

 The specific reasons why you need to exercise the privileges of your exemption outside 

the United States.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.
2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption 

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
3
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 13, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

127895 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

TORIBIO FLORES, Persona Robert P. Young, Jr. l Representative of Stephen J. Markman, the Estate of Jose A. Flores-Toscano, Deceased, Justices Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 127895 

 COA: 250042 

Monroe CC: 01-013043-NO 

E.C. KORNEFFEL COMPANY, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 16, 2004 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ., would grant leave to appeal. 

t1006 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 13, 2005 

Clerk
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Annual Report of Encorium Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dr. Kai Lindevall, M. D. Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/S/ Dr. Kai Lindevall, M.D., Ph.DDr. Kai Lindevall, M.D., Ph.D.Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)




April 19, 2010




The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 113 (Thursday, July 26, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5327]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Mr. CARTER:
       H.R. 6219.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution
       The Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce 
     with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with 
     the Indian Tribes.
       And:
       Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution
       The Congress shall have Power . . . To make all Laws which 
     shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the 
     foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by the 
     Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in 
     any Department or Officer thereof.

[[Page H5328]]
```
Dolan Chemical Laboratory

4001 Bixby Road

Groveport, OH 43125

T: 614-836-4221, Audinet 210-4221

F: 614-836-4168, Audinet 210-4168

http://aepenv/labs

Water Analysis

Location: Mountaineer Plant Report Date: 8/13/2012

Form REP-703

Rev. 0, 4/2012

Sample Number: 123394-001 Date Collected: 08/08/2012 08:45 Date Received: 8/9/2012

 Trip Blank

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Data 

Qual

Mercury, Hg < 0.2 ng/L U 0.5 0.2 TLT 08/10/2012 EPA 1631E

Sample Number: 123394-002 Date Collected: 08/08/2012 08:45 Date Received: 8/9/2012

 Field Blank

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Data 

Qual

Mercury, Hg 0.2 ng/L J 0.5 0.2 TLT 08/10/2012 EPA 1631E

Sample Number: 123394-003 Date Collected: 08/08/2012 08:45 Date Received: 8/9/2012

Plant Outfall #001 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Data 

Qual

Mercury, Hg 1.8 ng/L J 2 0.8 TLT 08/10/2012 EPA 1631E

Sample Number: 123394-004 Date Collected: 08/08/2012 08:00 Date Received: 8/9/2012

Bioreactor Effluent 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Data 

Qual

Mercury, Hg 2.5 ng/L J 5 2 TLT 08/10/2012 EPA 1631E

Sample Number: 123394-005 Date Collected: 08/08/2012 08:05 Date Received: 8/9/2012

CPS Effluent 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Data 

Qual

Mercury, Hg 102 ng/L 10 4 TLT 08/10/2012 EPA 1631E

Mountaineer Plant, 123394 Page 1 of 2
THIS TEST REPORT RELATES ONLY TO THE ITEMS TESTED AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL WITHOUT WRITTEN 

APPROVAL OF THE LABORATORY. ALL TEST RESULTS MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACCREDITING AUTHORITY, 

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

U: Analyte was analyzed and not detected at or above adjusted Method Detection Limit

J: Analyte was positively identified, though the quantitation was below Reporting Limit.

Brian Snyder, Chemist II

Email bssnyder@aep.com Tel. 614-836-4224

Fax 614-836-4168 Audinet 210-4224

Mountaineer Plant, 123394 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 4.3


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the
reference made to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Part B of the Prospectus
and to the use of our report dated January 10, 2017, in this Registration Statement (Form S-6 No. 333-214677) of Smart Trust 288,
comprising Smart Trust, Morningstar Dividend Yield Focus Trust, Series 16.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


January 10, 2017
# C_2021513EN.01002602.xml

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/26

---

Order of the General Court of 28 October 2021 — Diusa Rendering and Assograssi v Commission

(Case T-201/18) (1)

(Public health - Rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies - Ban on exporting organic fertilisers and soil improvers derived from Category 2 material - Failure by the Commission to initiate the procedure for re-examining the ban - Action for failure to act - Proposal of draft measures putting an end to the failure to act - No need to adjudicate)

(2021/C 513/39)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Diusa Rendering Srl (Piacenza, Italy) and Assograssi — Associazione Nazionale Produttori Grassi e Proteine Animali (Buccinasco, Italy) (represented by: M. Moretto, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi, W. Farrell and B. Eggers, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 265 TFEU seeking a finding that the Commission unlawfully failed to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 5a of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (OJ 1999 L 184, p. 23) so as to re-examine the ban on exporting organic fertilisers and soil improvers derived from Category 2 material laid down by Article 43(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (Animal by-products Regulation) (OJ 2009 L 300, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on this action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on this action.

| 2. | The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Diusa Rendering Srl and Assograssi — Associazione Nazionale Produttori Grassi e Proteine Animali. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Diusa Rendering Srl and Assograssi — Associazione Nazionale Produttori Grassi e Proteine Animali.

---

(1)  OJ C 166, 14.5.2018.

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 113 (Thursday, July 26, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5327]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Mr. NUGENT:
       H.R. 6205.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives 
     Congress the authority to lay and collect taxes and duties. 
     With this authority comes the inherent duty to protect these 
     funds from fraud and theft so that they are used for their 
     constitutional purpose- to pay the debts and provide for the 
     general welfare of our nation.
```